egsr07-btdf microfacet models for refraction

8/17/2019 EGSR07-btdf Microfacet models for refraction

1/12

Eurographics Symposium on Rendering (2007)Jan Kautz and Sumanta Pattanaik (Editors)

Microfacet Models for Refraction through Rough Surfaces

Bruce Walter1† Stephen R. Marschner1 Hongsong Li1,2 Kenneth E. Torrance1

1 Program of Computer Graphics, Cornell University 2 Beijing Institute of Technology

Abstract

Microfacet models have proven very successful for modeling light reflection from rough surfaces. In this paper we

review microfacet theory and demonstrate how it can be extended to simulate transmission through rough surfaces

such as etched glass. We compare the resulting transmission model to measured data from several real surfaces

and discuss appropriate choices for the microfacet distribution and shadowing-masking functions. Since rendering

transmission through media requires tracking light that crosses at least two interfaces, good importance sampling

is a practical necessity. Therefore, we also describe efficient schemes for sampling the microfacet models and the

corresponding probability density functions.

Categories and Subject Descriptors (according to ACM CCS): I.3.7 [Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism]:Keywords: Refraction, Microfacet BTDF, Cook-Torrance Model, Global Illumination, Monte Carlo Sampling

1. Introduction

Transmission into or through refractive media is an impor-tant component in the appearance of many materials, includ-ing both largely transparent media, such as glass or water,and translucent media, such as skin or marble. When theboundary of a medium is smooth, then transmission is easilymodeled using Snell’s law of refraction. However, when theboundary is rough, there is a lack of physically based andverified models for use in computer graphics.

In this paper we first review microfacet theory and showhow, using a generalization of the half vector, it can be usedto model both reflection and refraction at rough boundariesbetween media. This provides a complete analytic BSDFmodel that can be used to simulate rough transmissive mate-rials such as theetched glass globe shown in Figure 1.Oneof our goals is to serve as a complete, self-contained referencefor implementors, so we provide all the necessary equationsand discuss practical issues such as choices of distributions,shadowing-masking, and importance sampling. Since trans-mitted light must cross at least two interfaces, good impor-

tance sampling is crucial for efficient rendering.We also validate the microfacet model by comparing it to

measured transmission data from four real surfaces. Roughtransmission shows several interesting behaviors (e.g., seeFigure 2) such as the strong shift in the peak away from thesmooth refraction direction towards grazing angles (similar

† email: {bjw,srm}@graphics.cornell.edu,{hl86,ket1}@cornell.edu

to off-specular peaks in rough reflection), and the microfacetmodels are able to successfully predict such effects. We alsointroduce a new microfacet distribution, which we call GGX,thatprovides a closer match for some of our surfaces than thestandard Beckmann distribution function.

Next we will discuss related work, and then review gen-

Figure 1: Glass sphere with etched map of the world, simu-

lated using our microfacet refraction model (Beckmann dis-

tribution with roughness modulated by a texture map).

c The Eurographics Association 2007.


2/12

B. Walter et al. / Microfacet Models for Refraction

140 160 180 200 220 240Θ o

1

2

3

4

5

Measured transmission for Θ i 0, 30, 60, 80°

Figure 2: Measured transmission ( f t (i,o,n) |o · n|) for arough surface (ground glass) at 0, 30, 60, and 80 degrees

incidence angle. Dashed lines are the refracted directions

predicted by Snell’s law for a smooth surface. Note that

the transmitted lobe grows broader as the incidence angle

increases and is shifted significantly towards grazing com-

pared to refraction through a smooth surface.

eral microfacet theory in Section 3. Appropriate expressionsfor the microsurface (smooth) reflection and refraction aredeveloped in Section 4. We then give the rough surfacereflection and refraction models in Section 5 and discusschoices for the microfacet distribution and related functions.Section 6 describes our measurement apparatus and com-pares our measurements to the fitted microfacet models. Ap-pendix A reviews the Smith shadowing-masking approxima-tion for arbitrary microfacet distributions.

2. Previous Work

Microfacet models were introduced to graphics by Cook and

Torrance [CT82], based on earlier work from optics [TS67],to model light reflection from rough surfaces. Many varia-tions have been proposed (e.g., [vSK98,KSK01,PK02]). Mi-crofacet models are widely used in graphics and have proveneffective in modeling many real surfaces [NDM05].

Ward [Lar92] introduced a simplified version of theCook-Torrance model and extended it to reflections fromanisotropic materials. He also introduced a method for sam-pling his model, and Beckmann distributions in general, butsee [Wal05] for the correct sampling weights. An alternativesampling method using fitted separable approximations wasproposed by Lawrence et al. [LRR04].

Schlick [Sch94] used rational approximation to create a

cheaper approximation to the Cook-Torrance model includ-ing a widely adopted approximation to the Fresnel formula.

Ashikhmin and Shirley [AS00] introduced an anisotropicreflection model using a Phong microfacet distributionincluding correct importance sampling. [APS00] createdenergy-conserving reflection models from arbitrary micro-facet distributions, though this formulation involves numeri-cally estimating integrals without closed form solutions.

i Direction from which light is incidento Direction in which light is scatteredn Macrosurface normalm Microsurface normal D Microfacet distribution functionG Bidirectional shadowing-masking function

G1 Monodirectional shadowing functionF Fresnel term

f r , f mr Reflectance (BRDF) for macro and microsurface f s, f ms Scattering (BSDF) for macro and microsurface f t , f mt Transmittance (BTDF) for macro and microsurface

hr Half-direction for reflectionht Half-direction for transmission−→hr ,−→ht Unnormalized half vectorsρ Fraction of incident energy scattered in a modeδ Dirac delta function ∂a∂b Jacobian of the transform between a and b

ηi Index of refraction of the media on the incident sideηo, ηt Index of refraction of media on the transmitted side

pm(m) Probability of choosing microsurface normal m po(o) Probability of choosing scattered direction oχ+(a) Equal to one if a > 0 and zero if a ≤ 0

sign(a) Sign function (1 if a ≥ 0 and -1 if a


3/12


nm

Microsurface

Macrosurface

Figure 4: Micro vs. macro surface.

flow), the equations are identical when handling its dual, im-portance (i.e. tracing from cameras [Vea96]).

3. Microfacet Theory

A BSDF (Bidirectional Scattering Distribution Function) de-scribes how light scatters from a surface. It is defined as theratio of scattered radiance in a direction o caused per unitirradiance incident from direction i, and we will denote itas f s(i,o,n) to emphasize its dependence on the local sur-face normal n. If restricted to only reflection or transmission,it is often called the BRDF or BTDF, respectively, and our

BSDF will be the sum of a BRDF, f r , and a BTDF, f t , term.Since we want to include both reflection and transmission,we will take care that our derivations and equations can cor-rectly handle directions on either side of the surface.

In microfacet models, a detailed microsurface is replacedby a simplified macrosurface (see Figure 4) with a modi-fied scattering function (BSDF) that matches the aggregatedirectional scattering of the microsurface (i.e. both shouldappear the same from a distance). This assumes that micro-surface detail is too small to be seen directly, so only thefar-field directional scattering pattern matters. Typically ge-ometric optics is assumed and only single scattering is mod-eled, to simplify the problem. Wave effects and light thatstrikes the surface twice (or more) are ignored or must be

handled separately.

Rather than working with a particular micro-surface con-figuration, it is assumed that the microsurface can be ade-quately described by two statistical measures, a microfacetdistribution function D and a shadowing-masking functionG, together with a microsurface BSDF f ms .

3.1. Microfacet Distribution Function, D

The microfacet normal distribution, D(m), describes the sta-tistical distribution of surface normals m over the microsur-face. Given an infinitesimal solid angle d ωm centered on m,and an infinitesimal macrosurface area dA, D(m)d ωm dA

is the total area of the portion of the corresponding micro-surface whose normals lie within that specified solid angle.Hence D is a density function with units of 1/steradians. Aplausible microfacet distribution should obey at least the fol-lowing properties:

• Microfacet density is positive valued:

0 ≤ D(m) ≤∞ (1)

m

i

o

Visible VisibleBlocked

Figure 5: Shadowing-masking geometry: Three points with

the same microsurface normal m. Two are visible in both the

i and o directions, while one is blocked (in i in this case). By

convention, we always use directions which point away from

the surface.

• Total microsurface area is at least as large as the corre-sponding macrosurface’s area:

1 ≤Z

D(m)d ωm (2)

• The (signed) projected area of the microsurface is thesame as the projected area of the macrosurface for anydirection v:

(v · n) =Z

D(m)(v · m)d ωm (3)and in the special case, v = n:

1 =Z

D(m)(n · m)d ωm (4)

Equations for particular microfacet distributions are dis-cussed in Section 5.2.

3.2. Shadowing-Masking Function, G

The bidirectional shadowing-masking function G(i,o,m)describes what fraction of the microsurface with normal m isvisible in both directions i and o (see Figure 5). Typically theshadowing-masking function has relatively little effect on

the shape of the BSDF, except near grazing angles or for veryrough surfaces, but is needed to maintain energy conserva-tion. Some important properties that a plausible shadowing-masking function should obey are:

• Shadowing-masking is a fraction between zero and one:

0 ≤G(i,o,m) ≤ 1 (5)

• It is symmetric in the two visibility directions:

G(i,o,m) = G(o, i,m) (6)

• The back surface of the microsurface is never visible fromdirections on the front side of the macrosurface and vice-versa (sidedness agreement):

G(i,o,m) = 0 if (i · m)(i · n) ≤ 0

or (o · m)(o · n) ≤ 0 (7)

The shadowing-masking function depends on the detailsof the microsurface, and exact expressions are rarely avail-able. More typically, approximations are derived using vari-ous statistical models and simplifying assumptions. See Sec-tions 5 and Appendix A for more discussion.



4/12


5/12


i

o

hr

d ω o

|o.hr |

||hr ||2d ω h = d ω o

i o

hr

Surface Reflection

hr

Figure 6: Geometry for ideal reflection with half-vector −→hr = i + o and normalized half-direction hr =

−→hr/

−→hr. To

compute the Jacobian we compute the solid angle perturba-

tion in the normalized half vector, d ωh , induced by an infinitesimal solid angle perturbation, d ωo , in o. Solid angleis directly proportional to area on the corresponding unit

spheres. Only the 2D incidence plane slice through the full

3D space is shown.

A geometric derivation of the Jacobian is illustrated in Fig-ure 6. We have also used the facts that

−→h

r = (

−→h

r · h

r)and (o · hr) = (i · hr). The half-direction is undefined wheni = −o, which is never a valid reflection configuration. Forreflection we set ρ equal to the Fresnel factor F (see Sec-tion 5.1). Using Equation 11, the reflection microsurfaceBRDF is:

f mr (i,o,m) = F (i,m)

δωm (hr,m)

4(i · hr)2 (15)

for reflection from either side of the surface. Due to the Ja-cobian term, f mr increases as |i · hr| decreases, and this is aprincipal cause of the off-specular reflection peaks predictedby microfacet models and observed in real surfaces.

4.2. f

m

t , Ideal RefractionIn the case of transmission we need the indices of refractionon either side of the surface. Let us denote the indices asηi and ηo for the incident and transmitted sides of the sur-face, respectively. Ideal refraction then follows Snell’s lawfor finding the refracted direction o corresponding to any in-cident direction i. Snell’s law can also be expressed using ahalf-direction ht defined as:

ht = ht(i,o) =−→ht

−→ht

where −→

ht =−(ηii +ηoo) (16)

The magnitudes of the components of i and o perpendicularto m are equal to the sin of the angles between them and m.For refraction directions, by Snell’s law, these components

will exactly cancel in ht, and the resulting direction will becolinear with m. If we exclude the cases where i and o lieon the same side of the surface, then we will have ht = mif and only if i and o obey Snell’s law for refraction whenusing m as the surface normal. The negative sign in

−→ht is

because we use the convention that surface normals pointinto the medium with the lower index of refraction (e.g., air).We assume that the two sides of the surface have different

-nii

hti

o

ht

Surface Refraction

-noo

d ω o

= d ω h

no d ω o2

|o.ht|

||ht||2no d ω o

2

ht

Figure 7: Geometry for ideal refraction with half-vector −→ht = −ηii − ηoo and normalized half-direction ht =−→ht /

−→ht . We compute the Jacobian by taking a infinitesimal

solid angle perturbation d ωo in o , projecting into a pertur-bation in

−→ht and then onto the unit sphere for ht. Only the

2D incidence plane slice through the full 3D space is shown.

indices of refraction; otherwise ht becomes ill-defined. Thecorresponding Jacobian (see Figure 7) is:∂ωht∂ωo

= η2o|o · ht|−→ht2 = η2o |o · ht|

(ηi(i · ht) +ηo(o · ht))2 (17)

We assume no light is absorbed at the interface so the ρfor refraction is one minus the fresnel factor F . Using Equa-tion 11, we can write the microsurface refraction BSDF as:

f mt (i,o,m) = (1−F (i,m))

δωm (ht,m) η2o

(ηi(i · ht) +ηo(o · ht))2 (18)

Note that this BTDF does not obey reciprocity, instead wehave f mt (i,o,m)/η

2o = f

mt (o, i,m)/η

2i . This is a well-known

property of refractive interfaces [Vea96]‡ and if desired wecan restore reciprocity by tracking radiance/ η2 instead of ra-diance (sometimes called basic radiance). As in reflectance,the BTDF increases towards grazing angles due to the Jaco-bian term which similarly causes off-specular peaks in therefracted lobe.

5. BSDF for Rough Surfaces

Using the microsurface BSDFs for reflection and refractiontogether with Equation 8, we can now write the equation forthe macrosurface reflection and refraction BSDF f s, whichis sum of BRDF and BTDF terms:

f s(i,o,m) = f r (i,o,m) + f t (i,o,m) (19)

The reflection term is:

f r (i,o,n) = F (i,hr) G(i,o,hr) D(hr)

4 |i · n| |o · n| (20)

‡ While Veach correctly points out that refractive BTDFs are notreciprocal, he incorrectly claims they are not self-adjoint. In fact theequations are same whether transporting radiance (from lights) orimportance (from cameras).



6/12


This is exactly the same as the Cook-Torrance BSDF exceptthat we have a factor of 4 in the denominator instead of π.However, the original paper used a different normalizationfor D. Other more recent papers agree with our constant of four (e.g., [Sta01]).

The corresponding refraction term is:

f t (i,o,n) = |i · ht| |o · ht|

|i · n| |o · n|

η2o (1−F (i,ht)) G(i,o,ht) D(ht)

(ηi(i · ht) +ηo(o · ht))2

(21)We don’t get as much nice cancellation of terms in the re-fraction component, but it is still easily implemented andevaluated. This completes our derivation of the basic BSDFequations for the microfacet model of reflection and trans-mission through rough dielectric surfaces.

5.1. Choosing F , D, and G

Using Equations 20 and 21, requires appropriate choices forthe F , D, and G, terms. The Fresnel term is the best under-

stood, and exact equations are available in the literature. TheFresnel term is typically small at normalincidence (e.g.,0.04for glass with ηt = 1.5) and increases to unity at grazing an-gles or for total internal reflection. A convenient exact for-mulation for dielectrics with unpolarized light is [CT82]:

F (i,m) = 12

(g−c)2

(g + c)2

1 +

(c(g + c)−1)2

(c(g−c) + 1)2

(22)

where g =

η2t η2i−1 + c2 and c = |i · m|

Note that if g is imaginary, this indicates total internal reflec-tion and F = 1 in this case. Cheaper approximations for F are also sometimes used [CT82, Sch94].

A wide variety of microfacet distribution functions Dhave been proposed. In this paper, we discuss three differenttypes: Beckmann, Phong, and GGX. The Beckmann distri-bution arises from Gaussian roughness assumptions for themicrosurface and is widely used in the optics literature. ThePhong distribution is a purely empirical one developed in thegraphics literature; however, with suitable choices of widthparameters it is very similar to the Beckmann distribution.The GGX distribution is new, and we developed it to bettermatch our measured data for transmission. Equations for thethree distribution types and related functions are given at theend of this section.

The shadowing-masking term G depends on the distribu-

tion function D and the details of the microsurface, so ex-act solutions are rarely possible. Cook & Torrance used a Gbased on a 1D model of parallel grooves that guarantees en-ergy conservation for any distribution D, but we do not rec-ommend using it because it contains first derivative discon-tinuities and other features not seen in real surfaces. Insteadwe will use the Smith shadowing-masking approximation[Smi67]. The Smith G was originally derived for Gaussian

40 20 20 40

Θ m

2

4

6

8Microfacet Distributions, Dm

90 60 30 30 60 90

Θ v

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1Smith Shadowingmasking, G1

Figure 8: Left: Beckmann (red), Phong (blue), and GGX

(green) distribution functions D(m) with αb = 0.2 , α p = 48 ,and αg = 0.2 respectively. Beckmann and Phong are nearlyidentical while GGX has a narrower peak with stronger tails.

Right: Smith shadowing-masking term G1(v,n) for same Beckmann (red) and GGX (green) distributions. G1 is near

one except at grazing angles and GGX has more shadowing

due to its stronger tails.

rough surfaces, but has since been extended to handle sur-faces with arbitrary distribution functions [Bro80, BBS02],though in some cases (e.g., Phong), the resulting integrals

have no simple closed form solution.The Smith G approximates the bidirectional shadowing-

masking as the separable product of two monodirectionalshadowing terms G1:

G(i,o,m)≈ G1(i,m)G1(o,m) (23)

where G1 is derived from the microfacet distribution Das described in [Smi67, Bro80, BBS02] and Appendix A.Smith actually derived two different shadowing functions:one when the microsurface normal m is known, and anotheraveraged over all microsurface normals. Although the latteris more frequently used in the literature (e.g., [HTSG91]), inmicrofacet models, where we know the microsurface normalof interest, the former is more appropriate and we use it in

this paper.

5.2. Specific Distributions and Related Functions

Below we give the equations for the Beckmann, Phong, andGGX distributions D (see Figure 8), along with their associ-ated Smith shadowing functions G1, and sampling equationsto generate microsurface normals from two uniform randomvariables ξ1 and ξ2 in the interval [0,1). The probability of generating any m using the given sampling equations is:

pm(m) = D(m) |m · n| (24)

Note that θm is the angle between m and n, θv between

v and n, and χ+

(a) is the positive characteristic function(which equals one if a > 0 and zero if a ≤ 0). These areall heightfield distributions (i.e. D(m) = 0 if m · n ≤ 0), andanisotropic variants exist but will not be discussed here.

Beckmann Distribution with width parameter αb:

D(m) = χ+(m · n)

πα2b cos4 θm

e

− tan2 θmα2b (25)



7/12


G1(v,m) = χ+

v · m

v · n

21 + erf (a) + 1

a√ π

e−a2 (26)

with a = (αb tanθv)−1

In the G1 equation, the first factor enforces sidedness agree-ment (i.e. v must be on same side of the macro and micro-surfaces). Because it involves the error function, erf ( x) =

2√ π

R x0 e− x2 dx, this equation can be expensive to evaluate.

Schlick [Sch94] proposed using a cheaper rational approxi-mation, but based it on a different shadowing-masking equa-tion. Instead, we provide the following rational approxima-tion to the Smith G1 equation above with relative error of less than 0.35%.

G1(v,m)≈χ+

v · m

v · n

3.535a + 2.181a2

1 + 2.276a + 2.577a2 if a


8/12


smoothsphericalsurface

opticalcontact

planarsamplesurface

Figure 9: Measurement setup: We bonded a glass hemi-

sphere to the back of our samples, to allow us to observe

transmission even at grazing angles.

problems for methods that assume such high weights neveroccur (e.g., most particle tracing methods). We can greatlyreduce the maximum weight by modifying the sampling dis-tribution slightly. For example, with the Beckmann distribu-

tion, we can instead sample a slightly widened distributiongiven by α†b = (1.2−0.2

|i · n|)αb. This reduces the maxi-mum sample weight to roughly four, a significant reduction.

6. Measurements

In order to validate our scattering model, we made mea-surements of transmission through several different typesof rough glass surfaces. This measurement cannot be madesimply by illuminating a plate of rough-surfaced glass andmeasuring the scattered light, because the light cannot be di-rectly observed inside the glass, and internal reflection willprevent light that scatters into relatively grazing directionsfrom escaping to where it can be measured. At the same

time, the large amount of internally reflected light will re-illuminate the rough surface from the inside, producing anunacceptable amount of stray light.

In order to directly observe the transmitted light, we elim-inate the second interface by cementing a plano-convexlens that is nearly a hemisphere to the back of the sam-ple (Figure 9). This configuration was inspired by the workof [NN04]. The sample is illuminated from the rough surfaceand viewed from a range of angles through the spherical sur-face, with the center of rotation of the apparatus aligned withthe center of the spherical surface so that the view directionis always perpendicular to the surface. This way, the scat-tered light exits the surface with minimal loss due to Fresnelreflection. Also, relatively little light is reflected back onto

the area near the center of the sample, since the reflectionpaths off the hemisphere are nearly perpendicular to the sur-face. This greatly reduces the stray-light problem comparedwith a flat sample.

In our setup, a 100mm square sample is cemented usingindex-matched adhesive§ to a 75mm diameter, 75mm focal

§ All the samples are soda-lime glass (the commercial samples are

length plano-convex lens, which is nearly a hemisphere. Forsamples of about 6mm thickness, the center of the lens’sspherical surface is on the rough surface. However, our sam-ples are of varying thickness, so the method must tolerate adistance of a few mm between the surface and the center.

The sample is illuminated from the rough side by the endof a 6mm circular fiber optic light guide at a distance of 610mm (illumination solid angle: .000076 sr). The light sourcewas a DC regulated fiber illuminator, providing stable andflicker-free illumination over the entire sample surface. Thetransmitted light was sensed by a cooled CCD camera view-ing the sample from the hemispherical side from a distanceof 885 mm through a 35mm imaging lens at f/5.6 (receiv-ing solid angle: .000039 sr). The measurement was made byaveraging the pixel values in a fixed rectangle in the cameraimage corresponding to an area on the spherical surface upto approximately 3mm x 10mm.¶

Because the measured area is defined by a fixed area inthe image, the measurements are proportional to the radi-

ance observed by the camera. Since radiance is preserved(up to a constant factor) under refraction, this arrangementproduces a signal proportional to the BTDF times the cosineof the incident angle. It is important to illuminate from thefront and view from the back to have this property; if thesample was flood-illuminated from the hemispherical side,the lens would focus the light into a nonuniform distributionof irradiance that would make the system sensitive to exactalignment between the sphere center and the surface.

We measured four samples of glass with rough surfacesgenerated by different processes. One was commerciallyproduced ground glass created by sandblasting soda-limeglass with 120 abrasive (ground , 1/16 inch thickness). One

sample was prepared in our lab by acid-etching one side of a plate of soda-lime glass (etched , 3/16 inch thickness). Thelast two are less well characterized: commercially availablefrosted glass ( frosted , 1/8 inch thickness) and commerciallyavailable antiglare glass for picture framing (antiglare, 1/16inch thickness). All samples had flat polished surfaces on thereverse side except the antiglare glass, which was rough onboth sides; we assume that the adhesive fills in the surfaceso that the extra rough interface is not relevant (and in fact,there is no visible evidence of an air layer).

The measurements consistently show a clear shift in thepeak of the scattered lobe away from the expected refrac-tion direction. When the roughness is low, as in the antiglareglass, the peak is near the ideal refraction angle, but for the

rougher samples it is substantially shifted toward grazing.

assumed to be), with refractive index around 1.51. The sphericallenses are BK7 optical glass, with refractive index 1.52, and thecured adhesive has specified refractive index 1.50. The slight dif-ference in index creates only negligible reflection over the range of angles we measured.¶ Smaller areas were used for less-diffusing samples, in order toensure the signal was relatively constant over the measured area.



9/12


120 150 180 210 240 270Θ o

1

2

3

4

5

Measured data vs. model for Θ i 0, 30, 60, 80°

15 30 45 60 75 90Θ m

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

Relative distribution Dm: data vs. fitted

Figure 10: Ground glass sample. Top is BTDF fit and bottom

is the fit to the empirical microfacet distribution D. Red line

is Beckmann fit and green is GGX fit.

For this reason many of the features of these rough-surfaceBTDFs are difficult to observe directly in a flat plate. As weshow next, our microfacet models predict this behavior well.

6.1. Sample ResultsFor each of our four samples we fitted our microfacet BTDFto our measured transmission data for normal incidence us-ing both the Beckmann and GGX distributions (see Fig-ure 12). For all samples we assumed an index of refractionof 1.51. This gives us two free parameters to fit: the distribu-tion width parameter (αb or αg) and an overall scaling factorto map our measurements to an absolute scale.

To test our BTDF model, we show two plots for each sam-ple. The first shows f t (i,o,n) |o · n| as a function of the trans-mitted angle θo. We show both the normal incidence case(θi = 0), where we performed the fitting, and three additionalincidence angles (θi = 30,60,80

◦) to test the models ability

to extrapolate to these angles.The second plot directly estimates points in the micro-

facet distribution function D from the data. Since the Gterm is close to one except at grazing angles, if we onlyuse data points far from grazing (i.e. where |i · n| > 0.5 and|o · n| > 0.5), and assume G(i,o,m) = 1 for these points, wecan solve Equation 21 for the corresponding values of D(ht).We also excluded points with very low measured values as

120 150 180 210 240 270Θ o

1

2

3

4

5Measured data vs. model for Θ i 0, 30, 60, 80°

15 30 45 60 75 90Θ m

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4


Figure 11: Frosted sample. Top is BTDF fit and bottom is

the fit to the empirical microfacet distribution D. Red line is

Beckmann fit and green is GGX fit.

these are easily affected by stray light. If the data fits a mi-crofacet model, then these points should all lie close to acurve which is the surface’s microfacet distribution function.Note that in both plots the models have been scaled by thefitted scaling factors to enable comparison with the relativemeasured data.

The data and model fits for the ground glass sample areshown in Figure 10. We can see that the GGX distributionprovides an excellent fit to the data and is much closer thanthe Beckmann fit. The only significant differences occur atnear-grazing angles where the microfacet assumptions of ge-ometric optics and single scattering may be less valid. We

Beckmann Fit GGX FitSample scale αb scale αg

ground 0.542 0.344 0.755 0.394

frosted 0.629 0.400 0.861 0.454

etched 0.711 0.493 0.955 0.553

antiglare 0.607 0.023 0.847 0.027

Figure 12: Fitted coefficients for our four samples. We fit-

ted the measured data for normal incidence to our BTDF

using both the Beckmann and GGX microfacet distributions.

In each case we fit both the distribution width parameter and

an overall scaling factor (because we have relative rather

than absolute measurements).



10/12


120 150 180 210 240 270Θ o

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


15 30 45 60 75 90Θ m

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Figure 13: Etched sample. Top is BTDF fit and bottom is



developed the GGX distribution specifically to fit this sam-ple after we discovered that the Beckmann distribution didnot match the inferred microfacet distribution as shown inthe bottom plot.

The plots for the frosted glass and etched glass samplesare shown in Figures 11 and 13. For both samples, both theBeckmann and GGX fits do a reasonable job of matchingthe measured transmission pattern, but neither is able to ex-actly match the empirical microfacet distribution functionsas shown in the lower plots. Most likely we could get evenbetter matches by finding distribution functions with behav-ior somewhere between that of Beckmann and GGX.

The antiglare glass has a much lower surface roughnessthan the other samples and consequently a much narrowerlobe as shown in Figure 14. Because its so narrow, we getrelatively few samples within the lobe and had more trouble

in estimating its width. In this case both the Beckmann andGGX fits perform equally well.

Using our BTDF model and sampling techniques, we haverendered simulations of the antiglare, ground, and etchedsamples in Figure 15. These images do a good job of du-plicating their different appearances, and their ability to ob-scure patterns and diffuse light. A simulation of an pattern-etched glass globe is shown in Figure 1.

120 150 180 210 240 270Θ o

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


15 30 45 60 75 90Θ m

100

200

300

400Relative distribution Dm: data vs. fitted

Figure 14: Antiglare sample. Top is BTDF fit and bottom is



7. Conclusions

In this paper, we have provided a comprehensive review of microfacet theory and shown how it can be extended to han-dle transmissivematerials with rough surfaces. We have vali-dated the resulting BTDF models against measured data and

shown that they can predict the refraction behavior of realsurfaces. We developed a new microfacet distribution func-tion (the GGX distribution) and shown that at least for somesurfaces it provides a closer match to the measured data thanthe standard Beckmann distribution. We have also describedhow to efficiently importance sample the microfacet modelwhich is essential when rendering transmitted light. We be-lieve these techniques can prove useful in enabling simula-tion of a wider range of materials including improved mod-els of translucent materials such as skin, marble, and paint.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by NSFgrants ACI-0205438, CNS-0615240, and CAREER CCF-0347303, an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship, and Intel.

References

[APS00] ASHIKHMIN M., PREMOZE S., SHIRLEY P. S.:A microfacet-based BRDF generator. In Proceedings of

ACM SIGGRAPH 2000 (July 2000), pp. 65–74.

[AS00] ASHIKHMIN M., SHIRLEY P. S.: An anisotropicphong BRDF model. Journal of Graphics Tools 5, 2(2000), 25–32.



11/12


anti-glare (Beckman, αb = 0.023) ground (GGX, αg = 0.394) etched (GGX, αg = 0.553)

Figure 15: Simulations of a glass slide with a rectangle of roughened surface using the fitted distributions from out anti-glare,

ground, and etched glass samples.

[BBS02] BOURLIER C. , BERGINC G. , SAILLARD J.:One- and two-dimensional shadowing functions for anyheight and slope stationary uncorrelated surface in themonostatic and bistatic configurations. IEEE Trans. on

Antennas and Propagation 50 (Mar. 2002), 312–324.

[Bro80] BROWN G. S.: Shadowing by non-Gaussian ran-dom surfaces. IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagation28 (Nov. 1980), 788–790.

[CT82] COOK R. L., TORRANCE K. E.: A reflectancemodel for computer graphics. ACM Transactions onGraphics 1, 1 (Jan. 1982), 7–24.

[Ger03] GERMER T. A.: Polarized light diffusely scat-tered under smooth and rough interfaces. In PolarizationScience and Remote Sensing. (Dec. 2003), vol. 5158 of

Proceedings of the SPIE , pp. 193–204.[HTSG91] HE X. D., TORRANCE K. E., SILLION F. X.,

GREENBERG D. P.: A comprehensive physical model forlight reflection. In Computer Graphics (Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 91) (July 1991), pp. 175–186.

[KSK01] KELEMEN C., SZIRMAY-KALOS L.: A micro-facet based coupled specular-matte BRDF model withimportance sampling. Eurographics Short Presentations(2001).

[Lar92] LARSON G. J. W.: Measuring and modelinganisotropic reflection. In Computer Graphics (Proceed-ings of SIGGRAPH 92) (July 1992), pp. 265–272.

[LRR04] LAWRENCE J., RUSINKIEWICZ S., RA-MAMOORTHI R.: Efficient BRDF importance samplingusing a factored representation. ACM Transactions onGraphics 23, 3 (Aug. 2004), 496–505.

[NDM05] NGA N A., DURAND F., MATUSIK W.: Ex-perimental analysis of BRDF models. In RenderingTechniques 2005: Eurographics Symposium on Rendering

(June 2005), pp. 117–126.

[NN04] NEE S.-M. F., NEE T.-W.: Polarization of trans-mission scattering simulated by using a multiple-facetsmodel. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 21(Sept. 2004), 1635–1644.

[NSSD90] NIETO-V ESPERINAS M., SANCHEZ-G ILJ. A., SAN T A. J., DAINTY J. C.: Light transmissionfrom a randomly rough dielectric diffuser: theoreticaland experimental results. Optics Letters 15 (Nov. 1990),1261–1263.

[PK02] PON T S. C., KOENDERINK J. J.: Bidirectionalreflectance distribution function of specular surfaces withhemispherical pits. Journal of the Optical Society of

America A 19 (Dec. 2002), 2456–2466.

[RE75] ROGERS J. E., EDWARDS D. K.: Bidirectionalreflectance and transmittance of a scattering-absorbingmedium with a rough surface. In Thermophysics Con-

ference (May 1975).

[San69] SANCER M. I.: Shadow Corrected Electromag-netic Scattering from Randomly Rough Surfaces. IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propagation 17 (1969), 577–585.

[Sch94] SCHLICK C.: An inexpensive BRDF model forphysically-based rendering. Computer Graphics Forum13, 3 (1994), 233–246.

[Smi67] SMITH B. G.: Geometrical shadowing of a ran-dom rough surface. IEEE Trans. on Antennas and Propa-gation (1967), 668–671.

[SN91] SÁNCHEZ-G IL J. A., NIETO-V ESPERINAS M.:

Light scattering from random rough dielectric surfaces. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 8 (Aug.1991), 1270–1286.

[Sta01] STAM J.: An illumination model for a skin layerbounded by rough surfaces. In Rendering Techniques2001: 12th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering (June2001), pp. 39–52.

[TS67] TORRANCE K. E., SPARROW E. M.: Theory for



12/12


off-specular reflection from roughened surfaces. Journalof Optical Society of America 57 , 9 (1967), 1105–1114.

[Vea96] VEACH E.: Non-symmetric scattering in lighttransport algorithms. In Eurographics Rendering Work-shop 1996 (June 1996), pp. 81–90.

[vSK98] VAN GINNEKEN B . , STAVRIDI M. , KOE N-DERINK J. J. : Diffuse and Specular Reflectance fromRough Surfaces. Applied Optics 37 (Jan. 1998),130–139.

[Wal05] WALTER B.: Notes on the Ward BRDF . Tech-nical Report PCG-05-06, Cornell Program of ComputerGraphics, Apr. 2005.

Appendix A: Deriving the Smith Shadowing, G1

This appendix briefly reviews deriving the Smith shadow-ing function G1 from the microfacet distribution D; see thereferences for more details. Originally created for Gaussianrandom surfaces [Smi67], the Smith G1 has been generalizedto other microfacet distributions [Bro80, BBS02].

Let us assume we can represent the microsurface as arandom heightfield relative to the macrosurface character-ized by two probability distributions: P1(ξ) for height ξ, andP22( p,q) for the microsurface 2D slopes p and q, measuredperpendicular and parallel to the incidence plane respec-tively. P1 can be any probability function without changingthe result. The 2D slope probability P22 can be computedfrom D using the relation:

P22( p,q) = D (m) cos4 θm (42)

where the cosine factors are due to the change of measure(solid angle vs. slopes) and projection onto the macrosur-face. For the Beckmann distribution, it is easily shown that

(using the relation tan

2

θm = p2

+ q2

) P22 is just a standard2D Gaussian. The 1D distribution of slopes q in the inci-dence plane, P2, is:

P2(q) =Z ∞−∞

P22( p,q) d p (43)

Let S (ξ0, µ) be the probability that a random point onthe microsurface with height ξ0 is visible from direction v,where µ is the slope of the visibility ray (see Figure 16):

µ = |cotθv| (44)

Parameterizing the ray by its projected distance τ on themacrosurface, the ray’s height at τ is ξ0 + µτ. Let g(τ)∆τ bethe fraction of previously unoccluded rays that first intersect

the microsurface in the interval [τ,τ+∆τ], so that:

S (ξ0, µ) = e−

R ∞

0 g(τ) d τ (45)

where g acts similarly to the attenuation coefficient in vol-ume rendering. To compute g, we assume that the surfaceheight and slope distributions are independent and that g canbe approximated as:what fraction of the rays that start thein-terval above the surface are below the surface at the end of it

n

vMicrosurface

Macrosurface

ξ0

∆ττ

θv

ξ

q∆τ

ξ0+µτ

Visibility

Ray

Figure 16: Geometry for Smith shadowing-masking G1 for

direction v , corresponding to a visibility ray has starting

height ξ0 and slope µ. At distance τ (measured along macro-surface), the microsurface has height ξ and slope q.

(and hence intersected the surface somewhere in [τ,τ+∆τ]).If ξ and q are the height and slope of the surface at τ, thenthe ray is above the surface at τ if ξ0 + µτ > ξ and below thesurface at τ+∆τ if (q− µ)∆τ > (ξ0 + µτ)−ξ. Thus we get:

g(τ) =

R ∞ µ (q− µ)P1(ξ0 + µτ)P2(q)dq

R ξ0

+ µτ−∞ P1(ξ)d ξ

= Λ( µ) µ P1(ξ0 + µτ)

f (ξo + µτ) (46)

where f ( z) is the probability z is above the surface, and Λ is:

f ( z) =Z z−∞

P1(ξ) d ξ (47)

Λ( µ) = 1 µ

Z ∞ µ

(q− µ)P2(q) dq (48)

We can solve Equation 45 by noting that the numerator inEquation 46 is the derivative of its denominator to that:

S (ξ0, µ) = eΛ( µ) log f (ξ0) = f (ξ0)

Λ( µ) (49)

and then we integrate over all starting heights ξ0 to find S ( µ),the average visibility over all starting microsurface heights:

S ( µ) =Z ∞−∞

S (ξ0, µ)P1(ξ0)d ξ0 = 1

1 +Λ( µ) (50)

where we used the fact that the derivative of f (ξ0) is P1(ξ0).

Finally we add a term to check that v started on the correctside of the microsurface (i.e. sidedness agreement) to get theSmith monodirectional shadowing term:

G1(v,m) = χ+

v · m

v · n

S ( µ) = χ+

v · m

v · n

11 +Λ( µ)

(51)

Using these equations we can derive G1 for any micro-

facet distribution D (though the integral in Equation 48 hasno closed form solution for some D) and together withEquation 23 find the corresponding bidirectional shadowing-masking term.

Often another integration over all m is performed to get anaverage shadowing over the whole microsurface, but this isneither needed nor desirable for use with microfacet models.


egsr07-btdf microfacet models for refraction

Documents